Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Tetracycline Adsorption on Commercial Biochar from Synthetic and Real Wastewater in Batch and Continuous Operations: Study of Removal Mechanisms, Isotherms, Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Desorption
Next Article in Special Issue
Servitization, Digitalization or Hand in Hand: A Study on the Sustainable Development Path of Manufacturing Enterprises
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Irrigation Requirement Prediction Using Internet of Things and Transfer Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15108261
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Key Factors of Sustainable Development of Organization: Bibliometric Analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

by
Shuo Yang
,
Lanxia Zhang
* and
Lele Wang
School of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110167, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8261; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108261
Submission received: 5 April 2023 / Revised: 6 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 May 2023 / Published: 18 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development in Organizational Culture and Leadership)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Organizational citizenship behavior is the key factor to promote the sustainable development of an organization, and it is of great significance to explore the research status, hotspots, and trends of organizational citizenship behavior to promote the sustainable development of the organization. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the knowledge structure and dynamic evolution trend of organizational citizenship behavior more comprehensively and objectively by using bibliometrics, in order to promote the development of theoretical research on organizational citizenship behavior and the sustainable development of the organization. This study found the following: Scholars have studied the factors of individual organizational citizenship behavior and group organizational citizenship behavior from three aspects: individual factors, leadership styles, and organizational factors. The research on the outcome of individual organizational citizenship behavior and group organizational citizenship behavior focused on performance and employee psychological state, and behavior mainly. Among them, the definition, nature, and scale of organizational citizenship behavior and the influence of different leadership styles on organizational citizenship behavior are core topics in this field; the study of the influence of employees’ psychological state on organizational citizenship behavior from the psychological perspective is a hot topic in this field; the different manifestations and connotations of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations and the impact of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations on employees’ psychology and work status are research trends in the future. The research conclusion not only enables scholars in this field to better understand the knowledge structure and research trend of organizational citizenship behavior, but also helps organization managers to fully motivate employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and promote the sustainable development of the organization.

1. Introduction

It is worth noting that a highly dynamic and complex operating environment significantly increases the operational risk of the organization [1] and has a huge negative impact on the sustainable development of the organization [2]. Organizations will become very vulnerable and not conducive to sustainable development if they only operate according to the rules and regulations they have established [3,4]. For this reason, it is no longer enough to focus on individual responsibilities within the workplace; organizations need individuals to perform more organizational citizenship behavior to increase their resilience and innovation [5,6]. For this reason, organizational citizenship behavior becomes an important factor in promoting sustainability development of organizations, and has immediately attracted a great deal of scholarly attention [7,8]. More than 135 studies were conducted between 1983 and 2000 alone. In recent years, organizational citizenship behavior has become the subject of much research by scholars in the field of organizational citizenship behavior [9,10]. The Web of Science database alone has more than 1100 relevant studies since 2015. Organizational citizenship behavior is the voluntary behavior of employees [11]; it has a significant impact not only on individual employee performance [12], job satisfaction, and organizational commitment [13], but also on the overall performance of organizations and teams [14]. In order to comprehensively and accurately grasp the development of organizational citizenship behavior research, scholars have used literature reviews [10,13] and meta-analyses [12,15] to summarize and sort out the numerous research findings. However, due to the vast amount of research, it is difficult to present the dynamic evolutionary trends, hotspots, and influence of organizational citizenship behavior research in a comprehensive, visual, and vivid manner. Knowledge-mapping-based bibliometrics and visual analysis provides a more comprehensive, intuitive, and objective way to track and evaluate research progress [16]. Since 2011, there has been an explosion of research on organizational citizenship behavior, but few article reviews have been published that include research results since 2011. This is not only incomplete in theory, but also has great limitations in management practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the knowledge system and structural features of organizational citizenship behavior more comprehensively and objectively by bibliometrics analysis, in order to promote the development of theoretical research on organizational citizenship behavior and the sustainable development of the organization. The study found the following: The definition, nature, and scale of organizational citizenship behavior and the influence of different leadership styles on organizational citizenship behavior are core topics in this field; the study of the influence of employees’ psychological state on organizational citizenship behavior from the psychological perspective is a hot topic in this field; the different manifestations and connotations of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations, and the impact of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations on employees’ psychology and work status are research trends in the future. This study reveals the knowledge structure, hotspots, and research trends of organizational citizenship behavior, and enriches the theoretical system of organizational citizenship behavior.

2. Data Sources

The quality of the articles determines the accuracy of the bibliometric and knowledge mapping analysis. The Web of Science database developed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is recognized as the authoritative citation database worldwide, providing an important guarantee for obtaining more reliable primary data for the bibliometric analysis. Therefore, the data in this paper are all sourced from the Web of Science database. At the same time, the appropriate search terms are the prerequisite for accurate data acquisition. In order to make the search results as comprehensive and accurate as possible, the Web of Science core collection was chosen for this study. This study used the subject “organizational citizenship behavior” or “organizational citizenship behaviour “ or “organisational citizenship behavior” or “organisational citizenship behaviour”. The search was conducted on 13 December 2022 and yielded a total of 2863 articles. Excluding nonacademic articles such as conference announcements, calls for papers, and public announcements, 2692 academic articles were finally obtained.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Bibliometric Method

Bibliometrics uses mathematical and statistical methods to quantify and analyze information of articles on the particular field, and can clearly reveal the characteristics and development patterns of the articles and the interconnections between different research categories [17]. Therefore, bibliometric analyses can objectively review the knowledge structure, current research status, and hotspots of a field, to accurately and reasonably predict future trends.

3.2. Analysis Tools and Analysis Methods

CiteSpace, a scientific visualization tool, can not only clearly show the research focuses and hot topics of a certain research field through different colors, the size of nodes, and the position between nodes, but also present the development trend and trend of a certain subject area in a certain period of time. Therefore, this study mainly used CiteSpace to conduct co-occurrence analysis, co-citation analysis, cluster analysis, and strategic coordinate analysis on relevant articles’ data.

4. External Characteristics of the Articles of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

4.1. Volume of Literature

This study divided research in this field into three phases based on the number of articles published each year on organizational citizenship behavior (see Figure 1): the first stage is the initial stage (1983–1996). A total of 45 articles were published in this phase, accounting for 1.67% of the total articles; only three articles were published each year. The second stage is the growth stage (1997–2012). A total of 1151 articles were published, accounting for 42.76% of the total articles; the average number of articles per year was 72. The third stage is the rapid growth period (2013–2022). A total of 1496 articles were published in this stage, accounting for 55.57% of the total articles; on average, 214 articles were published each year.
The degree of fit of the curve for the total number of articles on organizational citizenship behavior is revealed in Figure 1. This trend suggests that as work styles, work technologies, and work roles have changed, behavior outside of employee responsibilities has become increasingly influential on organizational survival, growth, and innovation. This has stimulated the interest of scholars in the study of organizational citizenship behavior.

4.2. Analysis of Research Authors

In order to ensure the objectivity and rigor of the analysis results, this study analyzes the research authors in the field of organizational citizenship behavior in terms of both the quantity and quality of articles published. The core group of authors was identified based on Price’s law, m = 0.749 n (m represents the minimum number of articles by all authors and n represents the maximum number of articles by all authors). This study counted the raw data consisting of 2692 articles and obtained a total of 4993 scholars. Of these, the highest number of articles was 23, so m = 4.796. Thus, scholars with five or more articles are the core authors in this field. The number of core authors were calculated to be 192, and they have published a total of 1438 articles, accounting for 53.004% of the total articles. This has reached the standard of 50%. This shows that academic research on organizational citizenship behavior has formed a stable core group of authors.
In order to further analyze the collaborative relationship between the various research subjects (especially the core research subjects) in the field of organizational citizenship behavior, this study used the “Author” function of CiteSpace. This study set the time slice to 4 and extracted the top 80 authors in terms of number of articles published in each time period. Through this method, this study obtained the collaborative network map of authors (Figure 2). The network map consists of 229 nodes and 160 connected lines. Each node represents an author, and the larger the node, the cooler the color, and more layers indicate that the author has published more articles, conducted research earlier, and contributed more in this field. Connections between nodes indicate the presence of collaboration between authors. The density of this network map is 0.006, indicating that the collaboration network of authors of organizational citizenship behavior is relatively loose, with a low level of collaboration between authors.

4.3. Institutions Co-Occurrence Analysis

Firstly, the number of articles published by each research institution was counted. A total of 2692 articles belonged to 1751 research institutions. Among them, 958 institutions published only one article. The number of institutions with 2 articles was 290. The number of institutions with 10 or more articles was 123. The top 30 most prolific institutions in terms of number of articles are shown in Table 1. The most prolific institution in this field in terms of number of articles from 1983–2022 was the University of Florida, with 73 articles. The next highest was Michigan State University, with 72 articles. In third place were the University of Georgia and the University of Haifa; they had published 50 articles. Seventeen of the top 30 institutions are located in the United States, eight in China, two in the Netherlands, and three in Korea, Canada, and Israel. The total number of articles from these 30 institutions is 1039, representing 38.297% of the total literature. This indicates that these 30 highly prolific institutions are the main foci of research on organizational citizenship behavior.
Secondly, in order to further analyze the collaborative relationships among research institutions (especially core research institutions) in the field of organizational citizenship behavior, this study used the “Institution” function of CiteSpace to extract the top 10 institutions in terms of number of articles published in each time period, and obtained the map of the collaborative network of research institutions in this field (Figure 3). Although Figure 3 shows that many research institutions in the field of organizational citizenship behavior have formed the network of collaborative relationships, such as the University of Florida and Michigan State University, as well as between Chinese University of Hong Kong and University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, etc., there are fewer exchanges and collaborations between research institutions in different regions.

4.4. Journal Co-Citation Analysis

Journal co-citation refers to the simultaneous citation of two or more journals in a single article; this reflects the correlation and similarity of knowledge structure between journals. This study used the “Cited Journal” function of CiteSpace to extract the top 10 journals in terms of the number of articles published in each time period, and obtained the co-citation network map of journals in this field (See Figure 4). As shown in Figure 4, the important journals in organizational citizenship behavior include “Journal of Applied Psychology”, “Academy of Management Journal”, “Journal of Management”, “Journal of Organizational Behavior”, “Academy of Management Review”, “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, etc. They are mainly important journals in the fields of organizational behavior, psychology, and management. There are also journals with a high centrality, such as “Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes” (centrality = 0.32), “Journal of Marketing Research” (centrality = 0.23), “Journal of Marketing” (centrality = 0.16), “Administrative Science Quarterly” (centrality = 0.15), “Academy of Management Annals”(centrality = 0.13), and “Organizational Citizenship Behaviours”(centrality = 0.12). These journals can link journals in different fields and form knowledge networks.

5. Analysis of Knowledge Structure

5.1. Analysis of Highly Cited and Co-Cited Literature

Most of the highly cited articles were published before 2000, indicating that the classic articles are still the main source of existing knowledge in the field of organizational citizenship behavior. In terms of the content of the highly cited articles, the main focus is on the following areas: firstly, the review articles that review the antecedents and outcome variables of organizational citizenship behavior [12,14,15]. The second are the definition, nature, and scale construction of organizational citizenship behavior [8,11]. The third are the empirical studies of organizational citizenship behavior at three levels: individual, leadership, and organizational. For example, individual factors include job satisfaction [18], organizational commitment [19], emotional exhaustion [20], and role definition [21]. At the leadership level, the impact of different leadership styles on organizational citizenship behavior were mainly studied based on leadership member exchange theory [19,22]. At the organizational level, the impact of organizational equity [23,24] and higher performance human resource management practices [25] on organizational citizenship behavior have been studied.
This study used the “Cited Reference” function of CiteSpace to extract the top 10 co-cited articles in each time period to obtain a co-citation network map of articles in organizational citizenship behavior (Figure 5). The map consists of 71 nodes and 279 lines, and the lines between the nodes represent the co-citation relationship between the articles [26]. As can be seen from Figure 5, there are eight articles with the highest total citation frequency. This indicates a high centrality of these eight articles. For this reason, they are important seminal articles in the field.

5.2. Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis

Keywords are the core of a paper, and to a certain extent, they can reflect the hot issues in a certain research field. This study used the “Keyword” function of CiteSpace to extract the top 30 keywords in the time period, and obtained the keyword co-occurrence network map of organizational citizenship behavior (Figure 6). The map consists of 77 nodes and 262 lines. From Figure 6 it can be seen that “Organizational citizenship behavior”, “Performance”, “Job satisfaction”, “Organizational commitment”, and “Organizational justice” are the five keywords that not only appear most frequently but also have the highest centrality, indicating that the interrelationships between organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational justice, and organizational performance are important elements of research in this area. For example, Schappe found that job satisfaction, perceptions of procedural justice, and organizational commitment are all significant correlates of organizational citizenship behavior [27], followed by “leader–member exchange”, “transformational leadership”, “leadership”. This indicates that the influence of different leadership styles (mainly ethical leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership, and transactional leadership) on organizational citizenship behavior based on social exchange theory is the hot topic in this field. For example, Jameel et al. found that transformational and transactional had a positive and significant impact on organizational citizenship behavior, and the results also showed that transformational leadership was more essential to enhance the organizational citizenship behavior among teachers than the transactional leadership style [28]. In addition, high-frequency keywords such as “Job attitude”, “Motivation”, “Psychological contract”, “psychological empowerment”, and “psychological attitude” reflect that the relationship between employees’ psychological state and organizational citizenship behavior is also a hot issue for scholars. For example, Mushtaq et al. found that psychological empowerment significantly mediates the relationship of workplace spirituality with organizational citizenship behavior [29]. At the same time, Figure 6 shows that the density of the network is 0.0895, which indicates that the co-occurrence network of keywords in organizational citizenship behavior is relatively tight, i.e., the relationships between the keywords were close.
Frequency of keywords reflects, to some extent, the research hotspots in a particular research area. Therefore, in order to provide a clearer picture of the research hotspots in organizational citizenship behavior from 1983–2022, this study draws up a summary table of the top 30 keywords in terms of frequency of occurrence (Table 2).

5.3. Analysis of the Dynamic Evolution of Keywords

The time zone visualization of keyword co-occurrence in the field of organizational citizenship behavior has great significance in exploring the evolutionary path of research in this field and potential research hotspots. The time zone visual map shows only the keywords with the highest frequency of occurrence; the node size is proportional to the cumulative frequency of occurrence of the keywords. Vertical bars arranged from left to right in the atlas represent time slices to show the evolutionary path of research themes.

5.3.1. Initial Stage (1983–1996)

As can be seen from Figure 7, there were three main research themes during this period: (1) The definition, nature, and scale of organizational citizenship behavior. Smith et al. formally introduced the concept of organizational citizenship behavior in 1983 and divided it into two dimensions: altruism and general compliance [8]. Subsequently, different scholars proposed the two-dimensional structure of organizational citizenship behavior [30], three-dimensional structure [11], four-dimensional structure [31], and five-dimensional structure [32]. Among them, the five-dimensional structure of altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue were more widely accepted. (2) Factors influencing organizational citizenship behavior. Early studies focused on the influence of individual employee factors such as job satisfaction [18], organizational commitment [33], and sense of organizational fairness [34] on their own organizational citizenship behavior. (3) The influence of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational and individual employee performance. For example, Organ et al. found that organizational citizenship behavior helps to reduce organizational operating costs and improve organizational performance [33]. Mackenzie found that organizational citizenship behavior explained 17% of the variance in employee performance [35].

5.3.2. Growth Stage (1997–2012)

As can be seen from Figure 8, scholars have conducted in-depth research on organizational citizenship behavior from the following three aspects during this period: (1) Further additions and refinements were made to the definition, dimensions, and measurement scales of organizational citizenship behavior. Podsakoff et al pointed out that organizational citizenship behavior may have different structural dimensions depending on different cultural backgrounds, and proposed seven dimensions that are more practical and applicable: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development [13]. (2) In-depth research on the factors influencing organizational citizenship behavior: ① The influence of individual employee factors on their organizational citizenship behavior, such as organizational commitment [36,37], job satisfaction [27,38], work motivation [39], and psychological contract [40,41], on organizational citizenship behavior. ② The influence of leadership style on organizational citizenship behavior has begun to receive attention from a wide range of scholars. For example, studies conducted by Wang, Law, and Hackett showed that transformational leadership had a significant positive impact on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior [22]. ③ The influence of organizational-level factors such as organizational equity [32,42] and organizational trust [43] on organizational citizenship behavior has begun to be explored. (3) In-depth research has continued on the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational and individual performance. However, research in this period suggests that the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational and individual performance is not simply linear in a positive or negative direction, but may be nonlinear. For example, MacKenzie et al. showed an inverted U-shaped relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and team performance [35]. Bolino et al. showed that employees spending too much time on organizational citizenship behavior could undermine their own task performance [44].

5.3.3. Hyper Growth Stage (2013–2022)

As can be seen from Figure 9, during this period, scholars then began to focus extensively on the potential mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions between the variables. For example, Castro et al., based on paired data from 176 salespeople and their supervisors in 96 companies, showed that corporate social responsibility influenced salespeople’s organizational commitment and, thus, their organizational citizenship behavior. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and employees’ organizational commitment was positively moderated by interaction equity and organizational ethos [45]. Meanwhile, more and more scholars are focusing on the impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. For example, Tan et al. showed that perceptions of organizational support mediated the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior through an analysis of data collected from 294 private universities in Malaysia and Thailand [46].

5.4. Keyword Clustering Analysis

In this paper, on the basis of keyword co-occurrence, the research content related to organizational citizenship behavior was divided into eight class clusters by VOSviewer software, as can be seen from Figure 10.
Cluster 1 is the largest research theme, which focused on the definition, nature, and scale construction of organizational citizenship behavior. Since Smith et al. introduced the concept of organizational citizenship behavior, many scholars have conducted extensive and in-depth research on its concept and nature [8]. Although this definition is widely accepted, some scholars have raised doubts about it, mainly focusing on the appropriateness of the definition of “extra-role behavior”, “not recognized by the formal system of rewards”, and “motivation to produce”. The appropriateness of these definitions has been questioned. In addition, many scholars have also defined the concept of organizational citizenship behavior from different perspectives such as collective interest [47], organizational positive utility [48], work practices [49,50], and autonomy [51].
Cluster 2 is the second major research theme, which focused on the impact of different leadership styles on organizational citizenship behavior. Currently, numerous scholars have conducted more extensive research on the relationship between different leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior, particularly the impact of transformational leadership, empowering leadership, authentic leadership, and ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. For example, Khan et al. found that transformational leadership has a significant impact on employee green organizational citizenship behavior. Green dedication was also found to significantly mediate the association between transformational leadership and employee green organizational citizenship behavior [52]. Kumari et al. found a strong positive relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior; moreover, the employees’ emotional intelligence was also found to mediate the relationship between the two variables partially [53]. An empirical study conducted by Shaikh et al. showed that authentic leadership positively relates to organizational citizenship behavior [54].
Cluster 3 focused on the impact of organizational citizenship behavior on individual employees’ psychological and work states. Previous research has shown that organizational citizenship behavior can significantly improve employees’ job satisfaction and job performance, among other things [12]. However, as research has continued, researchers have found that the outcome variables of organizational citizenship behavior and individual employee level are not always positive and may have a negative impact on individuals. For example, a study conducted by Bolino et al. showed that organizational citizenship behavior had a significant positive impact on employees’ work stress, role overload, and work–family conflict [55]. Bergeron et al. showed that employees who spent more time on organizational citizenship behavior experienced slower wage increases and career advancement [56]. At the same time, recent research further suggests that the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and individual employee psychology and work status is not simply a positive or negative linear relationship, but may be nonlinear. For example, Munyon et al. pointed out that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction [57].
Cluster 4 focused on the impact of organizational citizenship behaviors on organizational and individual performance based on different motivations. As research has progressed, numerous studies have shown that corporate supervisors tend to perceive employees with more organizational citizenship behaviors as more committed [58,59] and, in turn, individuals who exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors receive some valued compensation [60]. As a result, many employees use organizational citizenship behavior as a tool for them to obtain rewards or promotions. For example, Hui et al. showed that employees who exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors perceive them as beneficial to their own advancement [59]. Haworth et al. showed that employees are more likely to focus on organizational citizenship behaviors when they perceive that they will be rewarded for doing so [61]. In addition, temporary employees exhibit more organizational citizenship behaviors in order to gain permanent employment [62]. In addition, showing too much of oneself or helping others undoubtedly shows inaction or incompetence on the part of others, so employees who display too much organizational citizenship behavior may damage the image of other employees [63]. Overall, motivations for generating organizational citizenship behavior can be categorized as altruistic, impression management, damaging the image of others, and other potential motivations.
Cluster 5 focused on the relationship between employee psychological states and organizational citizenship behavior from a psychological perspective. Under the auspices of positive psychology and positive organizational behavior theories, scholars have gradually shifted their research on the factors influencing organizational citizenship behavior from the external environment to the internal factors of individuals, and from exploring the indirect influences on organizational citizenship behavior to exploring its essential causes. Many quantitative studies have shown that environmental factors indirectly influence organizational citizenship behavior by affecting employees’ psychological states. For example, an empirical study by Abu, Nasra, and Heilbrunn with 211 teachers showed that transformational leadership influenced employees’ organizational citizenship behavior by affecting their job satisfaction [64]. Perceptions of empowerment indirectly influenced their organizational citizenship behaviors, in addition to the presence of a stronger relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational citizenship behaviors in an open office [65].
Cluster 6 focused on the impact of organizational management practices such as organizational trust, organizational support, corporate social responsibility, and organizational culture on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. The focus on organizational trust, support, and other organizational management practices and organizational citizenship behavior reflects the value of “people-centered thinking”. Employees are more likely to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior when they perceive support and trust from the organization. Therefore, the influence of organizational-level factors on organizational citizenship behavior has received considerable scholarly attention. For example, Yildiz showed that organizational trust has a significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior and that this relationship is stronger when employees have higher psychological capital [66].
Cluster 7 focused on the impact of employees’ organizational commitment on their organizational citizenship behaviors. Organizational commitment is an individual’s attitude towards the organization, and according to “attitudinal behavior” theory, an individual’s attitude towards the organization will influence his or her behavior in the organization. Therefore, when employees’ organizational commitment is high, they will show more organizational citizenship behavior [67]. In addition, many scholars have explored the mediating and moderating role of organizational commitment between other variables and organizational citizenship behavior. For example, Ribeiro et al. showed that affective commitment mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior [68]; Gupta et al. showed that affective commitment positively moderated the relationship between organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior through a study of 750 nurses in nine large hospitals in India [69].
Cluster 8 focused on the impact of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior. Justice theory suggests that when individuals feel that things are unfair they will take a series of actions to balance out the perceived unfairness. Therefore, when employees feel unfairly treated in an organization, they will mitigate their feelings of unfairness by reducing their organizational citizenship behaviors [66]. Therefore, the relationship between organizational equity and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior has received a lot of attention from scholars. For example, a study conducted by Moorman showed that organizational equity is conducive to more organizational citizenship behaviors among employees [70,71].

6. Strategic Coordinate Analysis

The strategic coordinate was used to describe the relationships and influences among research topics in a research field, and can clearly show the knowledge structure, research hotspots, and trends in a research field. Therefore, based on the clustering analysis of keywords, this paper firstly calculates the sum of the number of links between each keyword and other keywords in each cluster, and takes the average value to obtain the density of each cluster. Secondly, this paper calculates the sum of the number of links between each category of keywords and other categories of keywords, and takes the weighted average to obtain the centripetal degree of the category of clusters. Finally, this study takes the density and centripetal degree of all categories as the coordinate origin and draws a strategic coordinate diagram (see Figure 11). The horizontal axis is the centripetal degree; the greater the centripetal degree, the more central the cluster. The vertical axis is the density of research clusters; the higher the density, the more connected and developed the clusters.

6.1. Core Areas of Research on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Quadrant 1)

Cluster 2 “The influence of leadership style on organizational citizenship behavior” and Cluster 5 “The influence of employees’ psychological state on organizational citizenship behavior” are located in the first quadrant. This indicates that the density and centripetalism of these two clusters is relatively high. This indicates that not only are they more closely connected within the group, but they are also more closely related to other groups and are at the core of the research field of organizational citizenship behavior.

6.2. Mature Areas of Organizational Citizenship Research (Quadrant 2)

Cluster 4 “The impact of differentially motivated organizational citizenship behavior on organizational and employee performance” and Cluster 8 “The impact of organizational equity on organizational citizenship behavior” are in the second quadrant. This suggests that these two clusters (especially Cluster 4) are more closely linked internally, but less related to the other clusters, and are relatively independent and mature research areas.

6.3. Marginal Areas of Organizational Citizenship Research (Quadrant 3)

Cluster 6 “The impact of organizational management practices on organizational citizenship behavior” and Cluster 7 “The impact of employee organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior” are in the third quadrant. Compared to the other clusters, the density and centripetalism of the clusters in this quadrant are lower, indicating that the clusters are connected loosely, less connected with other clusters, and more independent, belonging to the marginal field of organizational citizenship behavior.

6.4. Future Trends in Organizational Citizenship Research (Quadrant 4)

Cluster 1 “Definition, nature and scale of organizational citizenship behavior” and Cluster 3 “Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on employees’ psychology and work status” fall in the fourth quadrant, suggesting that these two clusters are less dense but more centripetal. Cluster 1 has the highest centripetal. This indicates that these two clusters (especially Cluster 1) are closely related to other clusters and are the core areas of research on organizational citizenship behavior.

7. Discussion

Sustainability is critical for organizations in the VUCA era, and organizational citizenship behavior is an important factor in promoting the sustainability development of organizations. The bibliometric analysis of organizational citizenship behavior can help scholars and managers to comprehensively grasp the overall research framework and research hotspots of organizational citizenship behavior, which not only helps to promote the development of the theoretical system of organizational citizenship behavior in theory, but also facilitates to give full play to employees’ organizational citizenship behavior in practice, thus promoting the sustainability development of organizations.
Based on the analysis of highly cited and co-cited literature, keyword co-occurrence analysis, keyword dynamic evolution analysis, cluster analysis, and strategic coordinate analysis, this study sorted out the overall research framework of organizational citizenship behavior. At present, scholars have studied the factors of individual organizational citizenship behavior and group organizational citizenship behavior from three aspects: individual factors (such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, etc.), leadership styles (such as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership, transactional leadership etc.) and organizational factors (such as organizational justice and empowerment climate). However, scholars have neglected the impact of the interaction between individual and environmental factors on organizational citizenship behavior. The individual–environment match theory states that the interaction between individual and environmental factors has a greater impact on individual behavior than individual and environmental factors alone [72]. This is because the match between the individual and the environment enhances individual satisfaction and allows the individual to experience more positive emotions [73], thus giving the individual more energy and positive emotions to fulfill other role requirements [74]. The research on the outcome of individual organizational citizenship behavior and group organizational citizenship behavior focused on performance and employee psychological state and behavior mainly. However, scholars have overlooked the spillover effects of organizational citizenship behaviors. Research on work–family spillover effects shows that work and family are interdependent, and individuals’ experiences in the workplace can spill over to the family domain, and experiences in the family domain can spill over to the workplace. Therefore, future research on the spillover effects of organizational citizenship behaviors should be strengthened.
However, there is still a need to strengthen the following aspects: Firstly, in addition to quantitative research methods based on cross-sectional designs of questionnaires, multitemporal and multilevel research methods, such as longitudinal studies, and qualitative research, such as case studies, should be strengthened to form a complementary empirical system. Secondly, given that organizational citizenship behavior is a complex phenomenon involving various factors and backgrounds, interdisciplinary collaboration and perspectives can greatly enhance our understanding of it. Therefore, the cross-recognition of multiple disciplines should be strengthened in the disciplinary structure to develop new theoretical and knowledge growth points [75]. For example, organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations may have different impacts on innovation performance. Therefore, studying the influence of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations on work innovation performance from the psychological perspective has important theoretical significance. Thirdly, in order to strengthen the sustainable development of organizational citizenship behavior, we should shift from leader management to employee self-management, strengthen employees’ recognition of organizational citizenship behavior, and transform organizational citizenship behavior into a working norm.
Although this paper is a meticulous and rigorous analysis of the existing literature, there are still the following limitations: firstly, all the articles in this paper come from a single database, Web of Science, which may have some influence on the content analysis and trend judgement to a certain extent. Secondly, the high-frequency keywords obtained based on a certain threshold are limited in reflecting the whole picture of organizational citizenship behavior research. Future research can increase the number of keywords by appropriately lowering the threshold value in order to give a more comprehensive overview of organizational citizenship research.

8. Conclusions

This study explored the knowledge framework, research hotspots, and research trends of organizational citizenship behavior by bibliometrics, and drew the following conclusions.
(1) In terms of the number of articles of organizational citizenship behavior, the overall number of articles show an exponential growth. (2) In terms of research subjects, although a stable core group of authors has formed, the degree of cooperation among them is lower. (3) In terms of countries and research institutions, they are mainly concentrated in the United States and China, and the degree of cooperation between different institutions, especially between different regional institutions, is lower. (4) From the perspective of the journals, the main focus is on high-level journals in the fields of organizational behavior and psychology, and the cross-fertilization between disciplines is becoming more and more obvious. (5) From the highly cited and co-cited articles, the classical articles were the main source of knowledge in this field, mainly including the articles on the definition and scale construction and development of organizational citizenship behavior, the review articles, and the empirical research articles. (6) From the keyword co-occurrence analysis, evolutionary analysis, cluster analysis, and strategic coordinate analysis, scholars have studied the factors of individual organizational citizenship behavior and group organizational citizenship behavior from three aspects: individual factors (such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, etc.), leadership styles (such as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership, transactional leadership, etc.) and organizational factors (such as organizational justice and empowerment climate). The research on the outcome of individual organizational citizenship behavior and group organizational citizenship behavior is mainly focused on performance and employee psychological state and behavior. Among them, the definition, nature, and scale of organizational citizenship behavior and the influence of different leadership styles on organizational citizenship behavior are the core topics of current research in this field; the influence of employees’ psychological state on organizational citizenship behavior is a hot topic of current research. The different manifestations and connotations of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations and the impact of organizational citizenship behavior based on different motivations on employees’ psychology and work status are the future research trends.
In conclusion, this study revealed the knowledge structure, hotspots, and research trends of organizational citizenship behavior comprehensively and objectively, and the goal of the research was achieved. This not only enriches the theoretical system of organizational citizenship behavior but also helps organization managers to fully motivate employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and promote the sustainable development of the organization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Y. and L.Z.; methodology, L.W.; writing—original draft preparation, L.W.; writing—review and editing, L.W. visualization, L.W.; supervision, S.Y. and L.Z.; project administration, L.W.; funding acquisition, L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China “How do you build on your strengths and avoid your weaknesses? A study of the double-edged sword effect of transgressive innovation on pairs of subjects, HRM intervention mechanisms and system dynamic processes” (72172032).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study does not involve any ethical issues.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to acknowledge Jiamin Li and Bin Ju for their technical support during the data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Teece, D.; Peteraf, M.; Leih, S. Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2016, 58, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sandberg, J.; Holmström, J.; Lyytinen, K. Digitization and phase transitions in platform organizing logics: Evidence from the process automation industry. Manag. Inform. Syst. Quart. 2020, 44, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. de Geus, C.J.; Ingrams, A.; Tummers, L.; Pandey, S.K. Organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Public. Admin. Rev. 2020, 80, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Grego-Planer, D. The relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors in the public and private sectors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khaskheli, A.; Jiang, Y.; Raza, S.A.; Qureshi, M.A.; Khan, K.A.; Salam, J. Do CSR activities increase organizational citizenship behavior among employees? Mediating role of affective commitment and job satisfaction. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2941–2955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Katz, D. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 1964, 9, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bateman, T.S.; Organ, D.W. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Acad. Manag. J. 1983, 26, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Smith, C.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ma, E.; Wang, Y.-C.; Xu, S.T.; Wang, D. Clarifying the multi-order multidimensional structure of organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-cultural validation. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 50, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Organ, D.W. Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 2018, 80, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Van Dyne, L.; Graham, J.W.; Dienesch, R.M. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 765–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Podsakoff, N.P.; Whiting, S.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Blume, B.D. Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Paine, J.B.; Bachrach, D.G. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 513–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Orag. Citizsh. Behav. Context. Perform. 2014, 10, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. LePine, J.A.; Erez, A.; Johnson, D.E. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, Z.; Yin, Y.; Liu, W.; Dunford, M. Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2015, 103, 135–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec. 2011, 62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Bommer, W.H. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Manag. 1996, 22, 259–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cropanzano, R.; Rupp, D.; Byrne, Z. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to job performance ratings and organisational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Morrison, E.W. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 1543–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, H.; Law, K.S.; Hackett, R.D.; Wang, D.; Chen, Z.X. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Niehoff, B.P.; Moorman, R.H. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 527–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moorman, R.H. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76, 845–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sun, L.-Y.; Aryee, S.; Law, K.S. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Acad. Manag. 2007, 50, 558–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec. 2006, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schappe, S.P. The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. J. Psychol. 1998, 132, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jameel, A.S.; Hamdi, S.S.; Massoudi, A.H.; Ahmad, A.R. The role of transformational and transactional leadership as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior in education system. Cihan Univ.-Erbil J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 5, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mushtaq, R.; Shafqat, T.; Khan, M.M.; Ellahi, A.; Ansar, A. Does psychological empowerment mediates the association of workplace spirituality with organizational citizenship behavior and employee burnout? Asia Proc. Soc. Sci. 2021, 3, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. J. Appl. Psychol. 1994, 79, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Graham, J.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Operationalization, and Validation; Unpublished working paper; Loyola University of Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 1989; Volume 68. [Google Scholar]
  32. Farh, J.-L.; Earley, P.C.; Lin, S.-C. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Admin. Sci. Quart. 1997, 42, 421–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Organ, D.W.; Ryan, K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 1995, 48, 775–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Konovsky, M.A.; Organ, D.W. Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 1996, 17, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mackenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Podsakoff, N.P. Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line? Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 559–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kent, A.; Chelladurai, P. Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics. J. Sport Manag. 2001, 15, 135–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Donaldson, S.I.; Ensher, E.A.; Grant-Vallone, E.J. Longitudinal examination of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. J. Career. Dev. 2000, 26, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tang, T.L.-P.; Kim, J.K. The meaning of money among mental health workers: The endorsement of money ethic as related to organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and commitment. Public. Pers. Manag. 1999, 28, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, S. Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. Int. J. Manpow. 2006, 27, 722–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, C.-h.V.; Kao, R.H. Work values and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediation of psychological contract and professional commitment: A case of students in Taiwan Police College. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 107, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Katrinli, A.; Atabay, G.; Gunay, G.; Cangarli, B.G. The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the relationship between psychological contract violation and organizational citizenship behavior. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tepper, B.J.; Taylor, E.C. Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pillai, R.; Schriesheim, C.A.; Williams, E.S. Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. J. Manag. 1999, 25, 897–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bolino, M.C.; Klotz, A.C.; Turnley, W.H.; Harvey, J. Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 542–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Castro-González, S.; Bande, B.; Fernández-Ferrín, P.; Kimura, T. Corporate social responsibility and consumer advocacy behaviors: The importance of emotions and moral virtues. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 846–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tan, L.P.; Yap, C.S.; Choong, Y.O.; Choe, K.L.; Rungruang, P.; Li, Z. Ethical leadership, perceived organizational support and citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of ethnic dissimilarity. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 23, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lambert, S.J. Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 801–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Piccolo, R.F.; Colquitt, J.A. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Borman, W.C. The concept of organizational citizenship. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 13, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bettencourt, L.A. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. J. Retail. 2004, 80, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Konovsky, M.A.; Pugh, S.D. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, A.N.; Khan, N.A. The nexuses between transformational leadership and employee green organisational citizenship behaviour: Role of environmental attitude and green dedication. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 921–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kumari, K.; Abbas, J.; Hwang, J.; Cioca, L.I. Does servant leadership promote emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behavior among employees? A structural analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shaikh, E.; Watto, W.A.; Tunio, M.N. Impact of Authentic Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior by Using the Mediating Effect of Psychological Ownership. Etikonomi 2022, 21, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bergeron, D.M.; Shipp, A.J.; Rosen, B.; Furst, S.A. Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 958–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Munyon, T.P.; Hochwarter, W.A.; Perrewé, P.L.; Ferris, G.R. Optimism and the nonlinear citizenship behavior—Job satisfaction relationship in three studies. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1505–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Posdakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. J. Mark. Res. 1994, 31, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Allen, T.D.; Barnard, S.; Rush, M.C.; Russell, J.E. Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Hum. Resour. Manag. R. 2000, 10, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bolino, M.C. Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 82–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Haworth, C.L.; Levy, P.E. The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Vocat. Behav. 2001, 59, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Moorman, R.H.; Harland, L.K. Temporary employees as good citizens: Factors influencing their OCB performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 2002, 17, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Widarko, A.; Anwarodin, M.K. Work Motivation and Organizational Culture on Work Performance: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as Mediating Variable. Gol. Rat. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 2, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Freire, C.; Pieta, P. The impact of green human resource management on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of organizational identification and job satisfaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nauly, M.; Purba, S.; Gultom, I. The Influence of Mindfulness, Collective Values, Transformational Leadership, Working Conditions, Psychological Empowerment on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Among High School Teachers in Medan. Ran. Inter. Soc. Sci. J. 2022, 3, 388–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Qiu, S.; Dooley, L. How servant leadership affects organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of perceived procedural justice and trust. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 2022, 43, 350–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lie, D.; Sofiyan, S.; Astiti, N.; Lina, N.P.M.; Sudirman, A. The Importance of Quality of Work Life on Teacher Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Commitment. J. Pendidik. Prog. 2022, 12, 994–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ribeiro, N.; Duarte, A.P.; Filipe, R.; David, R. Does authentic leadership stimulate organizational citizenship behaviors? The importance of affective commitment as a mediator. Sustain. Account. Mana. 2022, 13, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gupta, V.; Agarwal, U.A.; Khatri, N. The relationships between perceived organizational support, affective commitment, psychological contract breach, organizational citizenship behaviour and work engagement. J. Adv. Nurs. 2016, 72, 2806–2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Edezaro, P.O. Relationship between Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction, Perceived Trust, Employee Voice, and Organisational Citizenship Behaviuor. The Mediation Role of Organisational Communication. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Res. Stud. 2022, 2, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sun, I.Y.; Wu, Y.; Otu, S.E.; Aro, G.C.; Akor, I.C.; Nnam, M.U. Linking organizational justice to organizational commitment among Nigerian police officers. Crim. Justice. Behav. 2022, 49, 220–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kreiner, G.E. Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fit perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 485–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Edwards, J.R. Person–environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2008, 2, 167–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zheng, C.; Powell, G.N.; Greenhaus, J.H. Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person-environment fit approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 2009, 74, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Li, J.M.; Wu, T.J.; Wu, Y.J.; Goh, M. Systematic literature review of human–machine collaboration in organizations using bibliometric analysis. Manag. Decis. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08261 g001 550
Figure 1. Number of articles.
Figure 1. Number of articles.
Sustainability 15 08261 g001
Sustainability 15 08261 g002 550
Figure 2. Map of authors cooperation network.
Figure 2. Map of authors cooperation network.
Sustainability 15 08261 g002
Sustainability 15 08261 g003 550
Figure 3. Map of institutions cooperation network.
Figure 3. Map of institutions cooperation network.
Sustainability 15 08261 g003
Sustainability 15 08261 g004 550
Figure 4. Map of journal co-citation network.
Figure 4. Map of journal co-citation network.
Sustainability 15 08261 g004
Sustainability 15 08261 g005 550
Figure 5. Map of co-cited articles network.
Figure 5. Map of co-cited articles network.
Sustainability 15 08261 g005
Sustainability 15 08261 g006 550
Figure 6. Map of keywords co-occurrence network.
Figure 6. Map of keywords co-occurrence network.
Sustainability 15 08261 g006
Sustainability 15 08261 g007 550
Figure 7. Map of keyword time zones 1983–1996.
Figure 7. Map of keyword time zones 1983–1996.
Sustainability 15 08261 g007
Sustainability 15 08261 g008 550
Figure 8. Map of keyword time zones 1997–2012.
Figure 8. Map of keyword time zones 1997–2012.
Sustainability 15 08261 g008
Sustainability 15 08261 g009 550
Figure 9. Map of keyword time zones 2013–2022.
Figure 9. Map of keyword time zones 2013–2022.
Sustainability 15 08261 g009
Sustainability 15 08261 g010 550
Figure 10. Map of keyword clustering.
Figure 10. Map of keyword clustering.
Sustainability 15 08261 g010
Sustainability 15 08261 g011 550
Figure 11. Strategic coordinate.
Figure 11. Strategic coordinate.
Sustainability 15 08261 g011
Table
Table 1. Top 30 core research institutions.
Table 1. Top 30 core research institutions.
MechanismQuantityMechanismQuantityMechanismQuantity
University S Florida73Texas A&M University32University Iowa28
Michigan State University72Arizona State University31City University Hong Kong28
University Georgia50Seoul Natl University30Renmin University China27
University Haifa49University N Carolina30Florida State University26
Hong Kong Polytech University47University Wisconsin29University Amsterdam26
University Illinois47University Hong Kong29Shanghai Jiao Tong University25
Erasmus University43Oklahoma State University28Auburn University24
University Alabama41Indiana University28University Oklahoma24
Chinese University Hong Kong37University Michigan28Hong Kong University Sci & Technol23
Penn State University33Hong Kong Baptist University28University Laval23
Table
Table 2. Summary of top 30 keywords.
Table 2. Summary of top 30 keywords.
KeywordsFrequencyCentrality
Organizational citizenship behavior21470.37
Performance13680.19
Job satisfaction9990.23
Organizational commitment6140.13
Organizational justice4960.07
Leader–member exchange3590.02
Social exchange 3280.01
Meta-analysis3050.06
Transformational leadership2310.03
Leadership2230.07
Mediating role2020.01
Attitude1610.15
In role1480.01
Organizational support 1350.01
Trust1260.02
Turnover 1230.02
Workplace deviance1150.00
Self-efficacy1140.00
Moderating role 1070.12
Motivation1040.00
Abusive supervision 1030.00
Workplace deviance1040.00
Impression management 1010.00
Counterproductive work behavior950.12
Extra-role behavior910.01
Identification900.00
Ethical leadership900.02
Transactional leadership890.00
China820.00
Psychological contract750.00
Psychological empowerment730.00
Work engagement710.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, L. Key Factors of Sustainable Development of Organization: Bibliometric Analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108261

AMA Style

Yang S, Zhang L, Wang L. Key Factors of Sustainable Development of Organization: Bibliometric Analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108261

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Shuo, Lanxia Zhang, and Lele Wang. 2023. "Key Factors of Sustainable Development of Organization: Bibliometric Analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108261

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop